3
is that Government in accepting the highest
tender must have been aware that the firm
concerned were gambling. In 1933, only four
months after commencing operations, the motorbus
licensees applied for and obtained from
Government permission to extend their routes
and to charge second-class fares on certain
additional routes which competed with the
tramways. The petitioner complains both that
this alteration in the terms under which the
exclusive licence is operated is unjust to
them both as the Tramway Company thereby
subjected to unfair and uneconomic competition,
and as tenderers for the exclusive bus licence,
also
and that it is scandalous that the change was
made without giving them an opportunity to make
representations.
4. The Tramway Company claims that the
question of transportation principle, viz.,
whether the Company is being subjected to
unfair and uneconomic competition, should be
referred to the Ministry of Transport, that the
Hong Kong Government should be directed to
revert to its former policy of prohibiting
motorbus fares on competitive routes from being
less than the first-class tram fare, that in
future when new or extended routes, increased
services or variations in fares of buses are in
contemplation, the Tramway Company should have
full opportunity of submitting representations,
and finally that in view of the altered circum-
stances resulting from bus competition, the
Tramway